I am a bit behind in my reading of all the messages, so I am sorry if my
comments are a bit outdated, but I will try anyway.
There where to comments in the review of wertsch et al, which suprised me.
they both seems to be phrased under the general argument, that wertsch et
all needs to be more radical:
> the authors
>need to push the more radical implications of their perspective
>harder than they do. I will illustrate these two points with
>reference to the sociocultural reframing of agency.
1.
>Wertsch, Tulviste, and Hagstrom give a plausible account of how
>"the nature of individuals' mental functioning can be understood
>only by beginning with a consideration of the social system in
>which it exists" (p.340). Note, however, that this is much
>weaker than the claim that all agency is essentially social.
I personally fail to see how this is a weaker statement, than all agency is
"esentailly social". To use the concept of system opens up for a
consideration of the role which other artifacts and "nature" plays in the
mentall function. In this sense the concept of the social system for me
opens up for asking questions like: what should be taken into account when
we analyse mental functions. To claim that all agency is essentailly social,
only includes what we consider to be social and maybe only the humans in the
activity. That is anyway what I suspect when the author of the review=
continue:
>The construct "agency" is meant to explain what caused an act.
For me the concept of agency is not meant to explain what caused an act.
When we ask questions like what "caused" an act or agency, we very easy end
up in an explanation of intentions, instead of understanding how the agency
occurs, develops and change. If we do not like the individualistic
explanation, we could end up where the author of the review seems to end:=20
> To give a sociocentric
>answer to the question of agency, we will have to move beyond
>mechanisms, to an essentially collective account of causes.
For me this is just a reversed account of agency, and we could easy end up
with explanation like the group or collectives intention was.....=20
For the above mentioned reasons I do think the review is quite fair.
Best wishes
Jesper D=F6pping
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesper who-is-at axp.psl.ku.dk =20
Jesper D=F6pping =20
Psychological Laboratory=20
Univ. of Copenhagen =20
Njalsgade 88 =20
2300 Kbh. S. =20
Denmark =20
TLF: +45 35 32 88 15 =20
FAX : +45 35 32 87 45 =20
---------------------------------------------------------------------------